That being said i absolutely love benchmarks which include old stuff tested vs. new stuff! So, Steve from Hardware Unboxed did it once again - pitting the new Ryzen 3 processors vs. the legendary Core i5 2500K and iconic FX-8370.

Honestly, after watching this video i think AMD FX users should just die at this point

I kinda like how detailed adoredtv tries to be in his videos, but that said he's still amd biased to put it lightly,although he likes to say he isn't. Dunno how the hell he came up with the conclusion that fx 8300 was a better buy than 2500K in the long run cause of how multithreaded games these days are. The videos clearly shows fx8 getting beat soundly when running a gtx 1080.
I agree that Steve is very likeable and his commentary is nice.

I like two of those channels as well, they're really nice! I find it amusing that you say the 8350 is "iconic" - iconic at being bad? Well maybe, but I'm not sure that this would be the definition of being an icon.

I kinda like how detailed adoredtv tries to be in his videos, but that said he's still amd biased to put it lightly,although he likes to say he isn't. Dunno how the hell he came up with the conclusion that fx 8300 was a better buy than 2500K in the long run cause of how multithreaded games these days are. The videos clearly shows fx8 getting beat soundly when running a gtx 1080.
I agree that Steve is very likeable and his commentary is nice.

Adored is someone who likes to spin everything as he likes. Sometimes he is an avid AMD fanboy (and gets nice stuff from them, like expensive Vega Aqua Edition and Ryzen stuff) and sometimes (lately) he is the right opposite, in total enrage mode hating against them. Main reason I don't give a shit about him anymore. His words aren't to be trusted imo - there are much much better channels in youtube. But none of those catch the quality of Anand/Toms/TPU/PCGH, websites I regularly read and a good mix to cover everything. Youtube has other upsides, like live streams where you can actually see what happens live, practical testing, simply more to see and stuff, it's also nice when you're not able to read but able to listen, doing some other things at the same time.

The funny thing about FX is, they needed over 5, yes FIVE, years to have a higher IPC with it than with Phenom II! Phenom II was released early 2009 and only with Steamroller (2014, 3rd gen FX) they had a higher IPC. "Piledriver" was actually on par, Bulldozer was LOWER ipc than Phenom II. In the end, they gambled on "coaaarss, mooooar coaars" and it was a utter fail, because almost nobody cared about having so many cores so early. So the CPU was left with low IPC due to having so many cores and the gamble failed spectacularly. It wasn't even good enough to be used in consoles, there they rather opted to use a low power CPU originally made for small notebooks and hand devices.

The funny thing about FX is, they needed over 5, yes FIVE, years to have a higher IPC with it than with Phenom II! Phenom II was released early 2009 and only with Steamroller (2014, 3rd gen FX) they had a higher IPC. "Piledriver" was actually on par, Bulldozer was LOWER ipc than Phenom II. In the end, they gambled on "coaaarss, mooooar coaars" and it was a utter fail, because almost nobody cared about having so many cores so early. So the CPU was left with low IPC due to having so many cores and the gamble failed spectacularly. It wasn't even good enough to be used in consoles, there they rather opted to use a low power CPU originally made for small notebooks and hand devices.

Still playing games at 1080 60fps on the 5 year old FX. I will switch to Ryzen some time in the future but not for the sake of gaining more performance in games because really , I wont , not at that resolution and framerate.

Still playing games at 1080 60fps on the 5 year old FX. I will switch to Ryzen some time in the future but not for the sake of gaining more performance in games because really , I wont , not at that resolution and framerate.

Certainly not all of them can do 1080/60 on your FX. I'd wager most of them can't, you're just talking big. Hundreds of tests prove it can't keep up. It'd get destroyed in any open world game like GTA5 or Watch Dogs 2. Hell, my 4.9GHz 2500K could not do perfect 60 fps @1080p paired with 290X trix back in 2014.

Nope , pretty much all games that I played run at 60fps fairly consistent. The only game that truly goes way below 60 at times is Crysis 3 , but that one only runs smoothly on 8+ threads CPU. I certainly didn't tried all games and some might have dip here and there in terms of fps but nothing major. I certainly wouldn't have bought a 1060 if wasn't like that. Pretty much all CPUs from the last 5 years with 4+ threads will give you 60fps more or less.

Games like Doom and Prey where I constantly get 80+ fps prove that for the rest APIs are at fault for poor performance because of CPU overhead not the CPU itself. AdoredTV didn't speak out of his ass on this one , he just though APIs will get much better in the future and well , they didn't. Poor job on behalf of MS for sticking with antiquated programming paradigms in their APIs.

LOL you mean 1080p/60 AVERAGE ? Ok, I kinda see your point now, but avg. fps is still a crappy reflection of how a game runs. I just didn't imagine someone would use avg. fps as a reference, but expect no one but a FX6 owner who swears it can keep up with no problem to do that in the first place.....

If you think it's crappy why are you basing your opinions on those in the first place? Come dude stop spinning it around every which way you want , we both know you don't really know what you're talking about

Either stop trolling or come out of your bubble, of course avg fps is no reflection of how it works, it's only good at comparing GPUs. If a benchmark shows 49 fps min. and 74 fps. avg the game WILL run at below 60 fps way more often than it's acceptable to call it 1080/60. Percentage graphs show how a game runs. Not avg. fps graphs.